After a few days using those belly belts to control the Gunnar-man's marking have been successful at keeping him from peeing on the stove, though it's not for lack of trying: Leaving him to his own devices results in a wet "diaper" every time. I'm hopeful that he will eventually grow weary of failing to mark the stove and/or walking around in a soggy belly belt, but so far that's not the case, and with his remarkable adaptability, this may never happen, but at least we have the mess under control for the moment, and that adaptability is showing through in just how little he is bothered by having to wear it.

Sepharo wrote on Aug 15, 2012, 21:00:I don't think you need to be qualified to predict that if everyone was packing in that Aurora theater and all drew their weapons that there'd be some friendly fire. It's not much of leap.

Actually I'm not entirely sure you're responding to the right post given that you're talking about Canada and crime statistics and he's talking about friendly fire.

Agent.X7 wrote on Aug 10, 2012, 15:23:I carry a gun every time I go to the theater. And the mall. And the grocery store. And...

Funny, I've never made the news. Oh, wait. Maybe it's because I'm not dumb enough to carry it around in the open, in a theater that JUST EXPERIENCED A MASS SHOOTING. Derp.

Imagine that: everybody in the theater is armed, and one guy starts shooting. What could be the result? EXACTLY: dead people everywhere, innocent people shooting at other innocent people. Remember: the gun in your hand, of which you know that you would only use it in self-defense, is a threat to everyone else who sees you with a gun in the hand. The other people don't know that you would never shoot at them except to defend yourself.Everybody armed in a complex situation like a shooting in a populated area/place would contribute to a massive bloodshed, shooting at whom they would identify as a possible mad killer, with the innocents being the one to suffer the most.

Wow -- just saw this thread -- and this appears to be the post that started the big gun debate.

I just have one question -- what qualifies you to make the call on this scenario? What is your background? Do some googling on the statistics that Agent.X7 referred to and then present this argument with facts. Comparing the US to Canada is apples to oranges because there's more to take into consideration than just crime numbers between the two countries. The reduction in crime when people carry in the US is the key statistic and a very simple one you can make an educated decision on.

The fact that you started this post with "Imagine" speaks volumes. If this is a realistic scenario and not just something you've "imagined" -- please back it up with some solid logic.

I don't think you need to be qualified to predict that if everyone was packing in that Aurora theater and all drew their weapons that there'd be some friendly fire. It's not much of leap.

Actually I'm not entirely sure you're responding to the right post given that you're talking about Canada and crime statistics and he's talking about friendly fire.

Agent.X7 wrote on Aug 10, 2012, 15:23:I carry a gun every time I go to the theater. And the mall. And the grocery store. And...

Funny, I've never made the news. Oh, wait. Maybe it's because I'm not dumb enough to carry it around in the open, in a theater that JUST EXPERIENCED A MASS SHOOTING. Derp.

Imagine that: everybody in the theater is armed, and one guy starts shooting. What could be the result? EXACTLY: dead people everywhere, innocent people shooting at other innocent people. Remember: the gun in your hand, of which you know that you would only use it in self-defense, is a threat to everyone else who sees you with a gun in the hand. The other people don't know that you would never shoot at them except to defend yourself.Everybody armed in a complex situation like a shooting in a populated area/place would contribute to a massive bloodshed, shooting at whom they would identify as a possible mad killer, with the innocents being the one to suffer the most.

Wow -- just saw this thread -- and this appears to be the post that started the big gun debate.

I just have one question -- what qualifies you to make the call on this scenario? What is your background? Do some googling on the statistics that Agent.X7 referred to and then present this argument with facts. Comparing the US to Canada is apples to oranges because there's more to take into consideration than just crime numbers between the two countries. The reduction in crime when people carry in the US is the key statistic and a very simple one you can make an educated decision on.

The fact that you started this post with "Imagine" speaks volumes. If this is a realistic scenario and not just something you've "imagined" -- please back it up with some solid logic.

xXBatmanXx wrote on Aug 11, 2012, 20:18:And that article you linked is a joke, not to mention the horrid writing and analogies. It isn't about just carrying a gun, and if you think that, you would never understand.

It was a simple opinion article, pretty much exactly the same as what you provided which was also filled with bad writing, one sided analogies and false dichotomies.

The closest I can explain it is being a parent, you would (er SHOULD) protect your children/family at all costs - I just extend that to everyone I come across....

You don't need to explain it, I've heard it before. I just don't agree with it so we have different opinions on this is all. I think that theory doesn't give them enough credit even, it implies their choices were predetermined by some bizarre unknown imperative. What sets them apart is the tough choices (good and bad) they make every day and that's what I respect.

Agent.X7 wrote on Aug 11, 2012, 18:28:You shoot with cops all the time and you've never encountered the sheepdog analogy? You're either full of it or you shoot with Barney Fife. That analogy is so common among LEOs that to not hear it ever means you're not talking to LEOs. Hell, I know many civilians that consider themselves sheepdogs because they would jump in to help even though others wouldn't.

No, you have misread and inserted words that were not there. Hearing of a theory and subscribing to it are two different things. I've heard of it, I don't subscribe to it and in my experience with cops and soldiers, many others do not as well.

We are allowed to bid schedules by seniority. And those that don't "subscribe" to the sheepdog theory - well, I don't work with them. I want to be surrounded by the winning mentality. There are guys at my department that would refuse to go into a school with an active shooter inside - that my friend, is no one I would ever want to work with.

And that article you linked is a joke, not to mention the horrid writing and analogies. It isn't about just carrying a gun, and if you think that, you would never understand.

The closest I can explain it is being a parent, you would (er SHOULD) protect your children/family at all costs - I just extend that to everyone I come across....

Agent.X7 wrote on Aug 11, 2012, 18:28:You shoot with cops all the time and you've never encountered the sheepdog analogy? You're either full of it or you shoot with Barney Fife. That analogy is so common among LEOs that to not hear it ever means you're not talking to LEOs. Hell, I know many civilians that consider themselves sheepdogs because they would jump in to help even though others wouldn't.

No, you have misread and inserted words that were not there. Hearing of a theory and subscribing to it are two different things. I've heard of it, I don't subscribe to it and in my experience with cops and soldiers, many others do not as well.

I'm not even going to attempt to respond to the argument against carrying a gun. You can believe what you like, it doesn't bother me one bit until you try to push your ideology on me.

Good because I didn't make any argument against carrying a gun, I said I don't think civilians being armed is a good idea as some sort of solution to violent confrontations in public places. No one pushed any ideology on you. I believe in the right to carry arms, I do not believe carrying arms is necessarily a solution to every problem, even violent ones.

Nobody said you did, man. Read the the thread. There is another, Obi Wan. There is another.

Agent.X7 wrote on Aug 11, 2012, 18:28:You shoot with cops all the time and you've never encountered the sheepdog analogy? You're either full of it or you shoot with Barney Fife. That analogy is so common among LEOs that to not hear it ever means you're not talking to LEOs. Hell, I know many civilians that consider themselves sheepdogs because they would jump in to help even though others wouldn't.

No, you have misread and inserted words that were not there. Hearing of a theory and subscribing to it are two different things. I've heard of it, I don't subscribe to it and in my experience with cops and soldiers, many others do not as well.

I'm not even going to attempt to respond to the argument against carrying a gun. You can believe what you like, it doesn't bother me one bit until you try to push your ideology on me.

Good because I didn't make any argument against carrying a gun, I said I don't think civilians being armed is a good idea as some sort of solution to violent confrontations in public places. No one pushed any ideology on you. I believe in (and exercise) the right to carry arms, I do not believe carrying arms is necessarily a solution to every problem, even violent ones.

xXBatmanXx wrote on Aug 11, 2012, 16:45:It is VERY accurate. Ask any law enforcement, military, or other similar profession. Doesn't really matter if it is humble or not. I don't go waving it around, I posted a link. Never even have brought it up before, and I don't go bragging. You wanna jump on my shit? It doesn't bother me one bit. I am proud of what I do, as are my peers. The studies done in regards to sheep, wolves, and sheep dogs are numerous. I stand by my statements.

No one jumped anything. I don't prod you, I don't know you, you're some random internet person who means nothing to me outside of the text they post. Sometimes I agree with you, other times I don't. I read the link, there were no links to any studies in it, just a vague set of societal classifications that I don't agree with. I shoot with cops and soldiers at the range and competitions all the time, they are made up of the same moral and social archetypes that the rest of us are.

I like to think that most cops, soldiers, EMS, firefighters and other public servants feel a duty and honor to serve. They aren't warriors bred to fight evil wolves or some other romantic notion. They are normal people who choose to do these things and that is what makes them worthy of respect in my mind.

You shoot with cops all the time and you've never encountered the sheepdog analogy? You're either full of it or you shoot with Barney Fife. That analogy is so common among LEOs that to not hear it ever means you're not talking to LEOs. Hell, I know many civilians that consider themselves sheepdogs because they would jump in to help even though others wouldn't. Many trainers push that same analogy during their courses.

I'm not even going to attempt to respond to the argument against carrying a gun. You can believe what you like, it doesn't bother me one bit until you try to push your ideology on me.

xXBatmanXx wrote on Aug 11, 2012, 16:45:It is VERY accurate. Ask any law enforcement, military, or other similar profession. Doesn't really matter if it is humble or not. I don't go waving it around, I posted a link. Never even have brought it up before, and I don't go bragging. You wanna jump on my shit? It doesn't bother me one bit. I am proud of what I do, as are my peers. The studies done in regards to sheep, wolves, and sheep dogs are numerous. I stand by my statements.

No one jumped anything. I don't prod you, I don't know you, you're some random internet person who means nothing to me outside of the text they post. Sometimes I agree with you, other times I don't. I read the link, there were no links to any studies in it, just a vague set of societal classifications that I don't agree with. I shoot with cops and soldiers at the range and competitions all the time, they are made up of the same moral and social archetypes that the rest of us are.

I like to think that most cops, soldiers, EMS, firefighters and other public servants feel a duty and honor to serve. They aren't warriors bred to fight evil wolves or some other romantic notion. They are normal people who choose to do these things and that is what makes them worthy of respect in my mind.

Dades wrote on Aug 11, 2012, 16:33:It is not a very accurate depiction nor is it humble.

It is VERY accurate. Ask any law enforcement, military, or other similar profession. Doesn't really matter if it is humble or not. I don't go waving it around, I posted a link. Never even have brought it up before, and I don't go bragging. You wanna jump on my shit? It doesn't bother me one bit. I am proud of what I do, as are my peers. The studies done in regards to sheep, wolves, and sheep dogs are numerous. I stand by my statements.

xXBatmanXx wrote on Aug 11, 2012, 16:18:It won't matter what I say dades, you are a cop basher and have prodded me since day one. I really don't care about your opinion nor how you feel about mine. I am as humble as I need to be.

That's very dishonest, I have never bashed any law enforcement. You were the one posing a scenario, the rest of us were just responding to it. As for being humble, you called other people sheep and labeled yourself some sort of benevolent protector. It is not a very accurate depiction nor is it humble.

xXBatmanXx wrote on Aug 11, 2012, 13:41:If there were 10 armed citizens in there, I bet not ONE of them wold realize the other 9 were there. You have never been in a stressful/heightened situation. You tunnel, they would have eliminated the threat and a lot less people would have died. They all would have focused on 1 thing - the crazy man shooting people.

None of us was there but it was a darkened theater filled with people bumping, jostling, running for cover, tripping over others and screaming. The gun man had multiple weapons, body armor and the element of surprise. I doubt any civilian being armed would have made a difference except perhaps inflicing accidental damage to themselves or others. Very surprised to hear someone claiming to be a cop that actually wants armed civilians in that situation, trained or not.

xXBatmanXx wrote on Aug 11, 2012, 13:41:If there were 10 armed citizens in there, I bet not ONE of them wold realize the other 9 were there. You have never been in a stressful/heightened situation. You tunnel, they would have eliminated the threat and a lot less people would have died. They all would have focused on 1 thing - the crazy man shooting people.

None of us was there but it was a darkened theater filled with people bumping, jostling, running for cover, tripping over others and screaming. The gun man had multiple weapons, body armor and the element of surprise. I doubt any civilian being armed would have made a difference except perhaps inflicing accidental damage to themselves or others. Very surprised to hear someone claiming to be a cop that actually wants armed civilians in that situation, trained or not.

But, guys, this is just my opinion. If you think else, it's alright to me. What I just don't understand is this almost "allergical" reaction to an idea like "keep your guns at home or at the shooting range". Different mentality, I guess. I don't expect North Corea and Iran to invade the US soon, so I don't think I need to start my private arms race.

No matter what your slant is on a given issue, there's always a few fringe nuts that do their best to make everyone else in that group look bad. That applies to guns, politics, religion, and just about everything else...

xXBatmanXx wrote on Aug 11, 2012, 13:41:If there were 10 armed citizens in there, I bet not ONE of them wold realize the other 9 were there. You have never been in a stressful/heightened situation. You tunnel, they would have eliminated the threat and a lot less people would have died. They all would have focused on 1 thing - the crazy man shooting people.

When most people hear gunfire, they run FROM it.When sheep dogs hear gunfire, they run TO it.

My mentality is necessary in an evil world. A sheep will never understand why I protect them under even the greatest of odds. That is why I am on this planet. To protect you when you cower in the corner. I just shake my head at the cop haters. You can hate all you want, but when you need help, I am the first one you call. When you mom stops breathing, I drive as fast as I can to get there to try and save her, putting in the back of my mind you fought with me last week, and took a swing at my head with a chair and threw you in jail. But now you need my help, I am going to do whatever I can to save your mom.....

Bats, if you're a cop, than I WANT YOU to be armed. But since you've been most likely in difficult situations, you do know that 10 guns in a room are 10 problems. And I am talking about a situation where at least one guy draws his gun, not one where all sit there, armed, enjoying some popcorn and a movie. A theatre with maybe 20 armed people is a disaster to happen, if only one of these guys is a looney. Bats, do armed people run away? Or do some of them turn into John Wayne wannabes who want to duke it out? And what is the outcome? Are these trained people like you who can assess the situation under stress? Most likely not. Which means: 1 looney with a gun, maybe 3, 4, or 5 other people drawing, too. And when the bullets fly, who will they shoot at? Only the looney who is shouting "I AM THE BAD GUY, SHOOT ME" or at everyone with a gun?

Again, more armed civilians is no means to stop lunatic armed civilians (or even veterans, like the idiot who shot the people at the Sikh temple). More of something that is wrong does not make it right, it makes it even more wrong. Police officers should be the only people to wear arms, everybody else should keep them at home.

But, guys, this is just my opinion. If you think else, it's alright to me. What I just don't understand is this almost "allergical" reaction to an idea like "keep your guns at home or at the shooting range". Different mentality, I guess. I don't expect North Corea and Iran to invade the US soon, so I don't think I need to start my private arms race.

Oh, here come the statistics. While you're at it, why not compare crime statistics in an armed country like the US e.g. with its neighbor Canada?

If a gun is at hand, it's logically more likely to be used. For self defense, or for shooting a cheating husband/wife. No gun, less likely a murder. Sure, stabbing, strangling, but that's up close, it's something that puts the people off. But from a distance, with a gun... Easier done. Result: more dead people. But again, you want the gun, keep it. As long as you can remember, that the gun in your hand in a turmoil will always be looked at as a possible threat by other people, no matter whether you would use it just to defend yourself. That's what you know, not the other people that just see a guy with a gun.